42 U.S.C. § 2000E Et Seq.

163 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Hill v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
  642 F. Supp. 319· M.D. Fla.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that only plaintiff Coleman proved disparate treatment due to intentional discrimination, while the disparate impact claim was dismissed.
• Garcia v. Broward Cnty. Pub. Schs. (BCPS)
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-06
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to identify a similarly situated individual outside his protected class, thus surviving the motion to dismiss for disparate treatment claims under Title VII.
• Pettway v. Amazon Fulfillment Ctr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-19
  The court held that a plaintiff cannot rely on unilateral mistake or misrepresentation defenses to avoid a clear and unambiguous release of claims in a settlement agreement, especially when the contract terms contradict the alleged misrepresentation.
• Tynes v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-13
  The court recommended granting attorney's fees and costs in part, denying an enhancement for attorney's fees and certain cost items, while awarding the lodestar amount for fees and a reduced amount for costs.
• Whitehead v. Fla. Delivery Servs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-26
  The court recommended granting the plaintiff's motion for default judgment in part, awarding specific amounts for back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs, while adjusting some of the requested amounts.
• Hart v. Bear Staffing Servs., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-28
  The court held that a plaintiff need not identify a specific comparator to state a discriminatory discharge claim if the complaint alleges replacement by someone outside the protected class, and that a hostile work environment claim can be reasonably related to an EEOC charge all
• Formosa v. Miami Dade Cmty. Coll.
  990 F. Supp. 1433· S.D. Fla.· 1997-12-11
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADA because her depression did not substantially limit a major life activity, and she was not qualified for the positions due to her attendance issues. The court also found no evidence of pretext f
• Vidal Rodriguez v. Anderson
  973 F.2d 550· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-26
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, and affirmed the judgment.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Delight Wholesale Co.
  973 F.2d 664· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-25
  The court held that claims of constructive discharge and wage discrimination were properly before the court, and that the district court did not err in finding sex discrimination, calculating back pay, or denying prejudgment interest.
• Gilbert v. The City OF Little Rock
  722 F.2d 1390· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-29
  The court held that the district court erred in its analysis of the evidence of discrimination in the City's promotional practices, remanding for further proceedings on that issue, but affirmed the district court's judgment in all other regards.
• Valdes v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co.
  507 F. Supp. 10· S.D. Fla.· 1980-10-02
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint alleged sufficient facts to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, as it could be construed as "sex plus" discrimination under Title VII.
• Evans v. Gertrude McCLUSKEY
  567 F.2d 755· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-07
  The court held that the plaintiff's Title VII claim was untimely because it was filed more than ninety days after receiving the right-to-sue letter, and her claims under §§ 1981 and 1983 were barred by the statute of limitations due to lack of concealment.